What is the test for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to object to prosecutorial misconduct?

To establish ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to object to prosecutorial misconduct, a defendant must show both that counsel's performance was deficient, and that it is reasonably probable the verdict would have been more favorable to him absent counsel's deficiency. (See People v. Hernandez

Page 15

(2004) 33 Cal.4th 1040, 1052-1053.) "We presume that counsel rendered adequate assistance and exercised reasonable professional judgment in making significant trial decisions. [Citations.]" (People v. Holt (1997) 15 Cal.4th 619, 703) To the extent the record on appeal fails to disclose why counsel acted or failed to act in the manner challenged, we must affirm the judgment unless counsel was asked for an explanation and failed to provide one, or unless there could be no satisfactory explanation for counsel's conduct. (People v. Gray (2005) 37 Cal.4th 168, 207.)

Defense counsel made it clear he did not want to draw attention to appellant's outburst during the prosecutor's comments concerning evidence of his infatuation with guns. Counsel's decision not to object to this line of argument was reasonable since it was based on evidence already admitted at trial, which showed appellant repeatedly posing with guns. Even appellant's mother had testified that appellant "likes guns." Appellant does not challenge the admissibility of the evidence on which the prosecutor commented. The prosecutor's comment that appellant was infatuated with guns and took pride in handling them was a fair commentary on the evidence and his inference of a possible motive from that evidence was reasonable. (See People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 712, fn. 13 [prosecutor's comment on defendant's possible motive for indiscriminately killing two people was "a reasonable inference from the record"].)